Dan Vogel'S Video "Religious Seekers & Mormon Authority"

[Dan Vogel]

That's exactly it and there is no resolving the conflict. Either you believe it was inspired or you don't. Period, game over.

And he already gave away what side of the question he was on with this:

There is no resolution possible to the difference and no way to prove either point of view. Either it was revelation or it wasn't.

That makes it a real yawner from here out.

Of course, this is a false dichotomy, since more sophisticated Mormons will allow for a more complex interplay between revelation and environment.

[mfbukowski]

It appears you are debating yourself.

What I mean by “springing spontaneously out of the American wilderness” is that most Mormons do not see Mormonism or it’s theology as a response to antecedents, but rather as revelation—a revealed restoration.

Of course, this is a false dichotomy, since more sophisticated Mormons will allow for a more complex interplay between revelation and environment.

Yes indeed it IS a false dichotomy and that is exactly what I have been saying. We see the antecedents as being planned by God.

So which is it that Mormons supposedly believe? A complex interplay or revelation "springing" out of the wilderness from nothing? You really need to get your story straight.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski, I’m sorry that your world is so polemical that nothing is interesting or significant unless it comes out for or against Mormonism.

I don't care about that. I am just trying to tie you to a clearly stated position and all I see is smoke and mirrors saying nothing of substance.

[altersteve]

Believing that God manipulated history to prepare the way for the restoration is not the same as saying Mormonism was indebted to previous theological debates.

I never said that.

[cdowis]

Listen, Mr. Dowis. Why threaten me about something that’s not really that controversial? You either have some objection about what I said or you don’t. The fact that you are trying to angle toward some ad hominem and haven’t given some legitimate critique tells us something about your “bona fides”. My video was not about theology per se, but the history of a few religious ideas and how they relate to a few ideas about Mormonism.

You are correct. I realize that I was just being peevish, and regret what I wrote.

Edited November 20, 2012 by cdowis

[Dan Vogel]

It appears you are debating yourself.

Yes indeed it IS a false dichotomy and that is exactly what I have been saying. We see the antecedents as being planned by God.

So which is it that Mormons supposedly believe? A complex interplay or revelation "springing" out of the wilderness from nothing? You really need to get your story straight.

What is possible and what many, if not most, Mormons believe are different things.

[Dan Vogel]

I don't care about that. I am just trying to tie you to a clearly stated position and all I see is smoke and mirrors saying nothing of substance.

Right, a clearly stated position for or against Mormonism. Sometimes I'm just trying to educate. What you do with the information is up to you. How can you say that talking about Seekers and their concepts of apostasy and restoration is not substantive? You are going to have to explain the smoke a mirrors, because I don't know what you are talking about.

[Calm]

What is possible and what many, if not most, Mormons believe are different things.

Who gets to decide "what is possible"?

[Dan Vogel]

Who gets to decide "what is possible"?

You!

My point was that any possible explanation for the interplay between cultural antecedents and Mormon origins is not necessarily what most Mormons believe, which is what my video was talking about. Apologists do not necessarily represent most Mormons.

[Dan Vogel]

Any reactions to the actual topic of my video. What do you think of the Seekers?